USS PAMPANITO (SS-383)

SETTING UP A RESERVATION ACTION PLAN

The first step was to set up committee of the Board of Trustees of the
Maritime Park Association (formerly the National Maritime Museum Association),
made up of Board members, staff and outside experts, to set up an action
plan for the care of the submarine. The thinking was that preservation
would be more in keeping with the goals of our organization and less expensive
over the long run than other options, to prevent problems rather than repair
them once they developed. At this point, the Association set up a hull
fund that was earmarked specifically for shipyard preservation work.

The next step was to gather all of the information we could about what
had been done for the submarine over the years. All records of surveys
and maintenance while she was owned by the Navy were obtained from Mare
Island Naval Shipyard. Builder's plans and detailed blueprints, however,
could not be obtained because they were still classified at that time and
could not be released to us.

Built in 1943, Pampanito served on six patrols in the Pacific
during World War II. She was taken out of service in December, 1945 and
was placed in reserve at Mare Island Naval Shipyard where she underwent
regular maintenance and inspections until the mid 1950s. Great care was
taken by the Navy to preserve the submarine and the equipment aboard. They
had every intention of returning her to active service at some point in
the future. Interior spaces were dehumidified, piping was drained and dried,
preservative was used in machinery, flood ports and through hull fittings
were blanked off, regular detailed surveys were performed, and she underwent
an extensive haul out in 1955.

During the 1960s she served as a Naval Reserve training platform at
Mare Island and was no longer the recipient of regular maintenance, except
for "housekeeping" activities. Some minor modifications were made to the
submarine at this time. In 1970 she was opened for industrial stripping
by the Navy and several key pieces of equipment were removed. During this
process little care was taken in the removal of equipment, often wires
were cut with a hacksaw and pushed back out of the way. In 1971 she was
stricken from Navy records, but was left in storage at Mare Island without
regular maintenance. The Maritime Park Association (formerly the National
Maritime Museum Association) assumed possession in 1976, but due to unexpected
local political problems, a public berth could not be obtained at that
time. Pampanito was placed in storage at a private shipyard where
she remained for almost six years.

From the time of the 1955 dry docking until she was opened to the public
in 1982, preservation activities had gradually slowed until they completely
stopped in the early 1970s.

All vessels that are afloat need periodic dry dockings, the frequency
of which is dictated by the conditions that the vessel is subjected to.
It became clear to us that Pampanito had not been dry docked since
1955, twenty-seven years prior, and that she had been in salt water the
entire time. Based on our desire to preserve the vessel and prevent problems
rather than repair them, it was decided that Pampanito would be
placed in dry dock as soon as possible. In order to determine how much
money would be needed, an accurate assessment of her physical condition
was required so that the scope of the work to be done could be determined.

Our preservation plan, as it was developing, had two basic components;
work done by a shipyard or outside contractors, and work accomplished by
staff and volunteers. This meant not only developing a regular dry dock
schedule, but also working to preserve and restore the submarine on a daily
basis. Another aspect of the planning process was to work toward restoring
the vessel to her condition and appearance at a specific point in time.
Because Pampanito underwent some major alterations during the summer
of 1945, that point in time was chosen as our goal.

To develop a schedule and decide upon the initial work that needed to
be done in the shipyard, Association staff began a methodical survey of
the submarine to accumulate as much information as could be obtained while
the vessel was afloat. Every part of the submarine that was accessible
was evaluated. This included all tanks, free flooding areas, void spaces,
the shell plating and the pressure hull as well as all piping and machinery
aboard. Special attention was focused on the areas around the waterline.
Problems that could be addressed immediately, such as corrosion in the
superstructure, were repaired. Missing vintage equipment was located and
installed on the boat.

Two teams of divers were then sent down to assess the underwater hull.
Unfortunately, the waters of San Francisco Bay are murky and visibility
is limited to a few inches. Also, the marine growth on the hull was over
three inches thick as the vessel had been without anti-fouling coatings
for several years. The divers were able to determine, however, that the
outer shell was in fairly good shape, except for pitting along the waterline.
We knew that the submerged areas of the bow and stern superstructures had
problems, and the divers confirmed that they extended below the waterline.

The next step was to have a professional marine surveyor evaluate Pampanito's condition. Based on ultrasonic gaugings it was determined that the outer
shell was deteriorated up to 14% and the portions of the pressure hull
that were in contact with salt water were deteriorated up to 9%. Portions
of the pressure hull inside the ballast and fuel tanks were well coated
and in excellent shape.

We began to get an idea of what had to be done in the shipyard and specifications
were drafted. Because there were still areas of the submarine that were
not accessible, and some problems would not reveal themselves until Pampanito
was out of the water, the specifications, and more importantly our
funding, had to have room to incorporate additional work. We did not know,
for example, the condition of the weld seams on the underwater body.

To further complicate the drafting of shipyard specifications, there
was some confusion as to what standards should be used to determine the
scope and intent of the work to be performed by the shipyard. In the absence
of national standards to look to for guidance, there was much discussion
about the methodology to be used. Many members of the Association Board
of Trustees were maritime industry professionals who felt that applying
standard ship repair practices was the logical approach. Active merchant
ships, and even Navy ships, are seen as having a finite lifetime. The most
important thing is to repair the vessel in the most cost effective manner
and get her back in service. At some point in the future the vessel would
no longer be of value, or be outdated, and would be scrapped. Also in this
line of thinking there is no interest in preserving the historic fabric
of the vessel or in using original construction techniques and materials
for repairs.

On the other hand, many of the Trustees and staff felt that our goal
was to preserve the vessel as she was built, and that she did not have
a finite life expectancy. They felt that our goal was to preserve the submarine
indefinitely, and that the same standards that apply to historic artifacts
or historic buildings, for example, should be applied to preserve the vessel.
Further, it was felt that all work be done as accurately and carefully
as possible.

Fortunately, at this time there was a growing movement to define the
standards for historic vessels. The Association for the Preservation of
Technology (APT) held a conference in San Francisco to formally discuss
this issue. The result of this conference on our internal decision making
process was that we developed shipyard specifications that reflected the
need to preserve the historic fabric and integrity of the submarine. This
led to the establishment of the National Maritime Initiative of the NPS and the publishing of the Standards for Historic Vessel Preservation Projects.

The next step was to decide upon an underwater coating system. When
Pampanito was last dry docked in 1955 she had been coated with a
"hot plastic" coating which would have to be completely removed so that
a new system could be applied. Removal meant sand blasting the entire underwater
body to Steel Structures Painting Council SP-10 (near white metal) to assure
a good bond for the new coatings. This is something that we did not want
to do each time the vessel was dry docked, not only because of the cost
involved, but also because of the repeated loss of original material inherent
in sand blasting to white metal.

We arrived at a system using a bonding primer on the bare metal, two
anti-corrosive coats and two anti-fouling coats. Also a tough anti-chaffing
coating was to be applied to the entire waterline. All surfaces in contact
with salt water, including all interior free flooding spaces, were to be
coated in this manner. We set up a regular dry dock schedule to put Pampanito
in dock every five years, which was based on the life expectancy of
the anti-fouling coatings. This schedule allowed us to repair the coating
system in subsequent dry dockings rather than replace it each time. This
regular schedule would reduce both the long-term costs and wear and tear
on the historic fabric. A high pressure water blast, instead of sand blasting
to bare metal, could be used the next time in dock to prepare surfaces
for recoating.

It was decided that Pampanito would be refloated after the coatings
were applied, shifted on the blocks, and dry docked a second time so that
the portions of the underwater body that were obscured by blocks could
be reached. In following dry dockings we would use an alternate blocking
position each time and dock the submarine only once each cycle. The original
Navy docking plan was obtained from Mare Island Naval Shipyard, where Pampanito
had last been dry docked. It called for a three position blocking plan
to reach the entire underwater hull, so the development of a two position
plan was included in the specifications for the initial docking and we
would use the original three position blocking plan there after.

The specifications then needed to be approved internally so that they
could be sent out to the shipyards for bids. This involved review by staff,
Board members and marine engineers. The specifications reflected the goal
of preserving the historic integrity of the submarine. The debate over
the standards to be used to guide the work continued until the Trustees,
after much discussion, approved the specifications and the regular dry
dock schedule. The specifications were ready to send out for bids.

Pampanito would remain in the shipyard for about six weeks. Because
the submarine is open to the public year round, lost income during this
time was another factor that had to be added in to our preservation budget.
January, February and early March are our slowest visitation periods, so
we chose that time to carry out the work. A deadline for finishing the
work, with a daily penalty for delay beyond a specific date, was added
to the specifications. The specifications were sent out to bid and a shipyard
was chosen.